Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

TO OUR READERS:  Please click on Urgent Agenda several times during the day.  We hope, in 2011, depending on the news, to put up at least one post during the afternoon hours, so there'll always be something new to read.  So visit us regularly.

I appeared on Silvio Canto Jr.'s excellent talk show from Dallas this morning.  The link is here:

JANUARY 10,  2011

FIGHTING THE LUNACY – AT 11:10 P.M. ET:  I monitored some of the news networks tonight, knowing that, on this first weeknight after the Arizona shooting, they'd be reacting to the event.

Bill O'Reilly at Fox News showed why he's so successful – launching a stunning, take-no-prisoners attack on the vile individuals and institutions of the left who have tried to turn the Arizona shootings to their own advantage.  O'Reilly went after The New York Times, Times columnist Paul Krugman, assorted politicos, and MSNBC.  O'Reilly has never been better, and it's this kind of fight back that we need to counter the bullies. 

More and more is coming out about the accused shooter, none of it linking him with any political movement.  The leftist propagandists have tried to blame the Tea Party and Sarah Palin, but there has not surfaced any connection whatever between the accused perpetrator and either the Tea Party or Governor Palin.  The linkage is outrageous, a classic example, as Bill Kristol has said, of old-style McCarthyism.

Meanwhile, Anderson Cooper at CNN treated us to an interview with that profound philosopher and public intellectual, Bill Maher.  The once-funny comedian, now just a comedian, informed us that people who call for smaller government will produce a society with less mental-health care, but one in which lunatics can buy guns.  I was moved by the power of Maher's logic.  Maher also suggested that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated because of angry rhetoric against him during the Civil War.  I've no doubt that Maher had Fox News in mind. 

Oh, to top off his commentary, Maher said that the gun lobby should be called the assassins' lobby.  I'm sure the new signs will go up tomorrow.

Of course, Anderson Cooper gave Maher the full respect accorded to a sane person.  Anderson Cooper has always struck me as a nice guy, probably decent, but whose journalistic skills would qualify for Junior Scholastic.

It's the fight back that was the key item in tonight's coverage.  We have to make sure it continues.

January 10, 2011      Permalink

GOOD NEWS FOR A CHANGE – AT 5:59 P.M. ET:  We've been following this.  It appears, based on a number of recent reports, to be accurate, and is good news for the good guys.  From superlative reporter Eli Lake, in The Washington Times:

Israel and the United States recently revised their estimates of when Iran will field a nuclear weapon, reflecting difficulties inside Tehran's program of building large numbers of centrifuges to enrich uranium.

Israel's former civilian intelligence chief, Meir Dagan, told Israeli newspapers last weekend that he thought Iran will not be able to produce an atomic bomb until 2015. The interview is significant in part because Mr. Dagan, who recently left the post, has made Iran a major focus for the Mossad intelligence service since he took over in 2002.

Mr. Dagan's estimates also coincide with recent U.S. intelligence community analysis that states Iran has run into difficulties in acquiring the refined equipment it needs to produce more centrifuges and to run the machines properly.

A new U.S. national intelligence estimate for Iran has been stalled for nearly a year, but U.S. officials familiar with the estimate say they expect a new classified estimate to be released as soon as this month.

Iran's difficulties also are likely to be the result of a covert Israeli program of sabotage and U.S. efforts against the country's nuclear program.

COMMENT:  This doesn't let us out of the woods yet, and Iran can solve these problems faster than intelligence agencies might expect.  But it is becoming clear that some actions against the Iranian program are having an effect. 

But...Iran will eventually have the bomb, and will have it, if he is reelected, during Obama's second term (choke).  So we may have some breathing time, but that's all.

January 10, 2011        Permalink

SO SAD – AT 4:58 P.M. ET:  Tom DeLay, once one of the most powerful men in Washington, will be going to prison.  From Fox:

AUSTIN, Texas -- A judge has ordered U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to serve three years in prison for his role in a scheme to illegally funnel corporate money to Texas candidates in 2002.

The sentence comes after a jury in November convicted DeLay on charges of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering. DeLay was once one of the most powerful men in U.S. politics, ascending to the No. 2 job in the House of Representatives.

The former Houston-area congressman had faced up to life in prison. His attorneys asked for probation.

COMMENT:  A fair sentence, I think.  And it shows that no man is, or should be, above the law.  Tom DeLay did some fine things as majority leader, but he, like some other Republicans, including Vietnam air hero Duke Cunningham, also made some serious mistakes.

We hope he serves his term without incident and tries to rebuild his life in an honorable manner.

January 10, 2011       Permalink

IT'S ALL THE SAME, IT'S ALL THE SAME – AT 11:29 A.M. ET:   We tend to give Hillary Clinton the benefit of the doubt here because she's one of the more moderate, relatively speaking, voices in the Obama internship program.  But occasionally, and especially recently, she's gone into high grovel and has started to sound ridiculous.  From CBS News:

In a town hall meeting in Abu Dhabi on Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decried the man who shot Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords as an "extremist" - and urged the audience not to judge his actions as representative of American ideologies.

When asked by a student why many in the United States target the entire Arab world in reference to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Clinton condemned "extremists and their voices," and said both countries had to work to overcome the strong influence of those voices, according to the Associated Press.

"We have extremists in my country. A wonderful, incredibly brave young woman Congress member, Congresswoman Gifford[s], was just shot by an extremist in our country," Clinton said.

"The extremists and their voices, the crazy voices that sometimes get on the TV, that's not who we are, that's not who you are, and what we have to do is get through that and make it clear that that doesn't represent either American or Arab ideas or opinions," Clinton continued.

Right.  They're all the same, don't you understand?  The guys who pulled off 9-11, which left 3,000 dead, are no different from the guy who shot that gun on Saturday in Arizona. All the same, all the same.

I guess that's what you have to say in the Arab world, but the net effect is to prolong Arab delusions.

As far as the shooter being an extremist, we actually don't know what exactly he believed.  "Mentally ill" would appear, to this layman, to be a more accurate label.  Oh, by the way, when did the Obama administration ever refer to Major Hasan, the Fort Hood mass murderer, as an extremist?  I don't recall the time.

January 10, 2011      Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 10:05 A.M. ET:

Dick Winters, a decorated Army officer whose World War II service was recounted in the best-selling book and HBO mini-series "Band of Brothers," died Jan. 2. News reports listed his age at 92.  Based on the 1992 book by historian Stephen E. Ambrose, the HBO mini-series came out in 2001 and was produced by Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg.  The story follows the tragedies and triumphs of the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 2nd Battalion, E Company.  To Mr. Winters, these citizen-soldiers came to be known as the men of Easy Company -- paratroopers who jumped into combat on June 6, 1944 above Normandy, France.

Day by day, we lose the best.  Compare please to the behavior of some Americans in the last few days.

January 10, 2011      Permalink

FOX NEWS UNDER ATTACK – AT 9:10 A.M. ET:  Part of the fallout from Arizona is a new round of attacks on Fox News.

Fox News is, by far, the most popular of the cable news systems.  Even so, its viewership is tiny in a nation of 310 million people.  In its most watched hours, Fox may be seen by maybe one percent of the American population. 

And yet, journalists are obsessed with Fox and its presumed influence.  In the aftermath of Arizona, a seemingly endless stream of critics point the collective finger at Fox, sometimes by name, sometimes by implication, as having helped create the "atmosphere" that made the shootings possible.

I've watched Fox News from the start.  I like some things, and dislike others.  The straight news shows on Fox, often hosted by Shep Smith (a liberal, by the way) are as good as the straight news shows of any outlet I can think of, and often better.  Fox has fine reporters.  And, if a mistake is made, it's corrected quickly.  Fox news shows include points of view often slighted by other networks, especially conservative views.  But the news reports are balanced.

The commentary shows, by Sean Hannity in particular, tilt to the right, although it's hard to find much bias in Greta Van Susteren's 10 p.m. program.  Glenn Beck clearly tilts to the right, but it's commentary.

I've probably seen more interviews with liberals on Fox than on any other network, but Fox never gets the credit for including them. 

Many in journalism hate Fox because it's so successful, and success breeds resentment and envy, rarely admiration.  Many hate it because it does permit conservative views a full airing.  In the mentality of some journalists, that's just not acceptable.  These critics are in journalism "to make a difference."  The difference they make is entirely on the left.  They had it pounded into their heads in the fourth-rate colleges they attended that the left is the only acceptable narrative, the only acceptable "truth."  The god of the modern left, Herbert Marcuse, said in the 1960s that the truth is what supported progressive causes.  In other words, if it helps a "progressive" cause, it's the truth. 

In all my years of watching Fox, I've heard very few things that are over any reasonable line.  Whenever commentary is permitted, you're going to find a few bad moments.  But there are no more, or fewer, at Fox than there are anywhere else.  The smears against the network are false and inflammatory.

Some Democrats want members of their party to refuse to appear on Fox.  That is adolescent and amateurish.  I don't know of any Democrat who's ever claimed he's been ill-treated in a Fox interview.  Indeed, Bill O'Reilly will interview President Obama before the Super Bowl game. 

The demonization of Fox brings discredit to those who attempt it.  I'm relieved that the attacks do not appear to be stopping Fox's meteoric growth.

January 10, 2011       Permalink 

THE DANGER – AT 8:41 A.M. ET:   I am reluctant to bring this up, but feel a responsibility to do so.

Amidst the wild charges by the political left and its interns in the media in the aftermath of the Arizona shootings, something terribly important is being forgotten.  Names are being used.  The leftist establishment is targeting, specifically, Sarah Palin, a woman who has never advocated violence against anyone.  She is being made into a pariah, no doubt to diminish her standing as a presidential candidate.

But this kind of hate speech against Sarah Palin can have horrible consequences, because it puts Sarah and her family at physical risk.

The same crackpots the left claims are out there on the right, are out there on the left.  Witness Lee Harvey Oswald.  Witness Sirhan Sirhan.  Does the left have no concern that its wild-eyed loathing of Sarah Palin might provoke some nut on the left to seek "revenge"?  I doubt if the leftists have even thought of it.

David Gergen, a sane voice on CNN, last night cautioned that this hot rhetoric directed at conservatives, especially Sarah Palin, is making matters worse.  He is correct.  A few sane people, like historian Douglas Brinkley, are echoing that cautionary note. 

But I worry about Sarah Palin.  It is actually rare for a political figure to be targeted, by name, in such a violent manner.  I hope my worries prove wrong.

January 10, 2011     Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 7:44 A.M. ET:  There appears to be no limit to the vulgarity of the left, as it tries to exploit the tragic shootings in Tucscon.  No comment is too wild, no charge too extreme.   The New York Times, displaying for all to see its deterioration as a newspaper, runs an editorial that should embarrass anyone who recalls The Times when it still had some standards.  Consider this quote:

It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge.

This of course is a thinly veiled attack on Fox News.  But notice that no names are used, no evidence presented.  On the left, evidence is not considered necessary, as the truth is obvious.

Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats.

Note the absence of the word "illegal" before immigrants.  And when was the last time "the right" demonized welfare recipients?  And bureaucrats?  Apparently, it's no longer legitimate, in the eyes of The Times, to criticize the actions of governments, or to point out that government workers often received higher salaries than their equivalents in the private sector.  The Times rant seems to suggest that government should be the master of the people, and not the other way around.

They seem to have persuaded many Americans that the government is not just misguided, but the enemy of the people.

No examples provided.  Not one.  Many conservatives, Ronald Reagan included, have said that government is often part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.  That is a far cry from charging that government is the enemy.

That whirlwind has touched down most forcefully in Arizona, which Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik described after the shooting as the capital of “the anger, the hatred and the bigotry that goes on in this country.”

This disgusting individual is an old Democratic Party hack.  But his political affiliation and history can be found almost nowhere.  His behavior at the now-famous press conference where he delivered his broadside was grossly unprofessional, for a supposed law-enforcement officer.  He couldn't even remember the name of the FBI official whom he was about to introduce but he had no hesitation about delivering a political speech.

Anti-immigrant sentiment in the state, firmly opposed by Ms. Giffords, has reached the point where Latino studies programs that advocate ethnic solidarity have actually been made illegal.

An awful and deceptive statement.  No description of the programs is given.  The programs involved are extreme, and have no place in public schools.  This is really a cheap shot.

Its gun laws are among the most lenient, allowing even a disturbed man like Mr. Loughner to buy a pistol and carry it concealed without a special permit. That was before the Tucson rampage. Now, having seen first hand the horror of political violence, Arizona should lead the nation in quieting the voices of intolerance, demanding an end to the temptations of bloodshed, and imposing sensible controls on its instruments.

The usual, standard leftist demand for new gun laws, without making any specific suggestions that might actually work.  It is certainly true that the Arizona shooter should not have been allowed to buy a pistol, given his mental history.  But the problem lies in the fact that no part of that mental history was entered into the database that the FBI uses in its instant background check.  A thoughtful discussion on this is perfectly appropriate.  The Times gives us a rant.

By the way, Chicago has among the strictest gun-control laws in the country, and Chicago is a shooting gallery.  I do not join those who rigidly oppose all gun-management laws.  It would be nice, though, if someone checked to see what works in expanding public safety, and what doesn't.  But on today's feel-good left, where the highest priority is feeling good about oneself, facts have little use. 

The Times embarrasses its name.  But it has done so many, many times in recent years.  The Times editorial adds nothing to the public discussion.  The editorial writers are, no doubt, content.

January 10, 2011      Permalink

JANUARY 9,  2011

WHAT ABOUT THIS RHETORIC? – AT 12:48 P.M. ET:  A longtime reader alerts us to this bit of rhetoric, which of course was not condemned at the time.  It's quoted at HillBuz:

On June 14, 2008, while running for president, Barack Obama said this:

"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."

Obama was quoting from a movie, "The Untouchables," but he applied the quote directly to politics.  No uproar from the media. 

And on September 17, 2008, Obama said this:

"I want you to argue with them and get in their face."

Again, no condemnation. 

January 9, 2011       Permalink

CHATTER AFTER TRAGEDIES – AT 11:42 A.M. ET:  We have a long history of immediate, sometimes irresponsible speculation after tragedies.

I was discharged from active Army service the hour President Kennedy was assassinated. A fellow trooper, also just discharged, was driving from Fort Dix, New Jersey, to New York City, and offered me a ride. We heard about the assassination just after leaving the Fort Dix gates.

It took only hours for the speculation to start, and become rampant.  Dallas, Texas, we were told – and I heard it right on the radio during that car ride – was a center of right-wing political activity, and, indeed, there had been some incidents.  Adlai Stevenson, our UN ambassador, had been spat at by some crazy when visiting the city.  There was a retired major general named Edwin Walker, who struck just about everyone as unbalanced, who had become a symbol of far-right activity in Dallas.

A large, anti-Kennedy ad had been positioned in the Dallas Morning News the day of the killing.

Dan Rather, then a CBS correspondent, reported that some Dallas school children had applauded news of Kennedy's being shot.  (That story later turned out to be completely false.) 

And so, the idea was planted in our heads that the assassination had to be the work of the right, even though Dallas had given the president the warmest of receptions.

Later, of course, we learned that Lee Harvey Oswald was in fact a leftist.  But the damage to press credibility was already done.

After the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, President Clinton speculated that conservative talk radio might have been a factor in influencing the bombers.  While the speculation was wild and grossly unfair, it took hold in some circles. 

It's interesting that there was little political speculation after the attempt on President Reagan's life in 1981.  After all, the right could not be blamed.

Now we have a flood of internet speculation that Sarah Palin may be in some weird way partly to blame for yesterday's shooting.  Outrageous.  As the chap said, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.   

January 9, 2011     Permalink

ABOUT THE SUSPECT – AT 10:53 A.M. ET:  In an example of fine, cautious reporting, experienced journalist Bruce Drake, at Politics Daily, gives some factual background on the suspect. 

Jared Loughner, the 22-year-old suspect accused of shooting Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in a rampage that killed six people and wounded more than a dozen others, had a history of troubling behavior that surfaced in rambling postings on his MySpace page, YouTube videos and classes he attended at Pima Community College in Tucson.

One of his videos prompted college officials to suspend him and tell his parents that he would have to get a mental health evaluation if he wanted to return to school, according to the New York Times. Loughner attended Pima from the summer of 2005 until October when he withdrew after his suspension.

Loughner tried to enlist in the Army in 2008 and took a physical. But First Sgt. Brian Homme, a Tucscon recruiter, told the Arizona Daily Star that he was rejected as unqualified. Citing confidentiality rules, the Army did not make public its reasons.

And...

Caitlin Parker, a former friend of Loughner, told ABC News that Loughner had once met Giffords.

"As I knew him more and more after high school, he got a little bit more odd," Parker said. "I mean, he was obsessed with the 2012 prophecy. I mean, he met Gabrielle Giffords once in '07 and told me he asked her some question that made absolutely no sense to me, but he said, 'I can't believe she doesn't understand it. Politicians just don't get it.'"

At college, Loughner "disrupted class frequently with nonsensical outbursts," according to Lynda Sorenson, who told the Daily Star she once took a math class with him.

COMMENT:  We may learn more later today, when the suspect appears in court.  It's encouraging to see that some reporters are sticking to facts.

January 9, 2011       Permalink

ARIZONA – AT 10:20 A.M. ET:  There will be briefings later today on the condition of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and the suspect will also appear in court later today.  From what we can gather, no change has been reported in Ms. Giffords's condition.  She is stil in Intensive Care, in critical condition.

An overnight report from a local station in Arizona said that the congresswoman was awake and speaking with family, but we have seen nothing to back that up.

There has been an outburst of vulgarity on the political left, claiming that this all happened because of "right-wing rhetoric," with some grossly irresponsible commentators blaming Sarah Palin.  We'll have more about this later, but Byron York, in a superb Washington Examiner piece that I commend to you, contrasts this vulgarity with the endless cautions that were issued after Major Nidal Hassan murdered 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, on November 5, 2009.  One commentator after another warned us about jumping to conclusions, even though the background and motivation of the murderer were obvious from the first moment.   York writes:

Within hours of the killings, the world knew that Hasan reportedly shouted "Allahu Akbar!" before he began shooting, visited websites associated with Islamist violence, wrote Internet postings justifying Muslim suicide bombings, considered U.S. forces his enemy, opposed American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as wars on Islam, and told a neighbor shortly before the shootings that he was going "to do good work for God." There was ample evidence, in other words, that the Ft. Hood attack was an act of Islamist violence.

Nevertheless, public officials, journalists, and commentators were quick to caution that the public should not "jump to conclusions" about Hasan's motive. CNN, in particular, became a forum for repeated warnings that the subject should be discussed with particular care.

Now, even though we know so very little about yesterday's shooter, the left is out making all kinds of wild statements about his motive.  Shame, shame.  York:

Fast forward a little more than a year, to January 8, 2011. In Tucson, Arizona, a 22 year-old man named Jared Lee Loughner opened fire at a political event, gravely wounding Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, killing a federal judge and five others, and wounding 18. In the hours after the attack, little was known about Loughner beyond some bizarre and largely incomprehensible YouTube postings that, if anything, suggested he was mentally ill. Yet the network that had shown such caution in discussing the Ft. Hood shootings openly discussed the possibility that Loughner was inspired to violence by…Sarah Palin. Although there is no evidence that Loughner was in any way influenced by Palin, CNN was filled with speculation about the former Alaska governor.

COMMENT:  I hope that conservatives have the backbone to blast the wild irresponsibility that we're seeing, but I doubt it.

January 9, 2011     Permalink